CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B2CD0D6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F3DC0D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s124E4A59 { width:207.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43647/98 by Fatma ORMANCI and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto , President ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 July 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Fatma Ormancı and her children Mehmet, Cengiz, Gönül and Bilgen Ormancı, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1952, 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985 respectively and live in Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. They are represented before the Court by Mr Dinçer Söğütlü, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 15 April 1991 terrorists raided the applicants’ village in Kahramanmaraş and killed the men of the village, including the first applicant’s husband A.O. On 15 April 1992 the applicants brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, claiming the State’s responsibility to protect the life and security of its citizens. They requested the court to grant them pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of A.O’s death. On 21 February 1994 the Ankara Administrative Court, after examining the observations submitted by the parties, issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the Gaziantep Administrative Court. On 10 August 1994 the applicants deposited the down payment of charges for the proceedings. On 7 March 1995 the documents concerning the investigations into the killing of the applicant’s husband were sent to the Court from the Gendarmerie Command of Kahramanmaraş. On 4 April 1995 the Court requested the birth records of the Ormancı family from the Elbistan birth registry. On 5 June 1995 the files concerning the birth records of the Ormancı family were submitted to the Court. On 22 December 1994 the Court appointed an expert to calculate the amount of pecuniary damage the applicants sustained as a result of the death of A.O. On 4 September 1995 the case file was send to an expert. On 17 October 1995 the report of the expert was submitted to the Court. On 10 November 1995 the Ministry of Internal Affairs objected to the expert report. On 19 June 1996 the Gaziantep Administrative Court awarded the applicants pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with the legal interest of 30% that would start running from the date of the action. On 30 July 1996 the Court requested the applicants to pay the charges concerning the communication of the decision to the parties. On 27 September 1996 the Court was informed that the applicants had paid the necessary charges. On 9 December 1996 the Ministry of the Internal Affairs appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Gaziantep Administrative Court. On 13 February 1997 the applicants submitted their observations to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 10 November 1997 the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court gave his opinion. On 10 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. The applicants were paid the amount of the compensation on 5   November 1997 and 30 April 1998. THE LAW The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 15 April 1992 and ended on 10 March 1998 with the Supreme Administration Court’s decision to uphold the judgment of the Gaziantep Administrative Court. They therefore lasted more than five years and ten months. According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contest that argument. As to the complexity of the case, the Government did not submit any observations. As to the behaviour of the domestic authorities, the Government contend that the case was examined by both the Ankara and Gaziantep Administrative Courts and the Supreme Administrative Court. The Government maintain that the administration court proceedings were based on a written procedure, in which collecting documents from the relevant authorities, exchanging the observations and obtaining expert reports took time but that in the present case there was no excessive procedural delay. As to the applicants’ behaviour, the Government submitted that the applicants have caused a delay in the proceedings by not paying the necessary charges in two different stages of the proceedings. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicants’ conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Vincent Berger   Ireneu Cabral Barreto   Registrar   President